February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ : February 03, 2009] THOMAS J. O'DONELL, ET AL. V. JUDGE NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR. [ACTING] MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MABITAC, LAGUNA); AND A.M. OCA IPI NO. 08-1977-MTJ [FORMERLY A.C. NO. 7613] (THOMAS O'DONELL, ET AL. V. HON. NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR. :
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ : February 03, 2009]
THOMAS J. O'DONELL, ET AL. V. JUDGE NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR. [ACTING] MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MABITAC, LAGUNA); AND A.M. OCA IPI NO. 08-1977-MTJ [FORMERLY A.C. NO. 7613] (THOMAS O'DONELL, ET AL. V. HON. NICOLAS V. FADUL, JR.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 04 February 2009:
A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ (Thomas J. O'Donell, et al. v. Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr. [Acting] Municipal Trial Court, Mabitac, Laguna); and A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-1977-MTJ [Formerly A.C. No. 7613] (Thomas O'Donell, et al. v. Hon. Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr.) - This refers to the letter dated 26 November 2008 filed by complainant Thomas O'Donell, requesting that the Court review in detail all the seven complaints, against Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr. in 2007 and 2008 asking the Court to be specific in its decisions.
Based on various verified sworn complaints dated May 2, 2007, July 17, 2007 and December 18, 2007, complainants charged respondent with Neglect of Duty, Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,Gross Ignorance of the Law and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in relation to Civil Case No. 342 entitled "Anastacia Montealegre . Spouses Manuel Montealegre and Aurelia Montealegre" for Unlawful Detainer.
Complainants narrated that, in 2004, Tirso Javier made a false claim to the land owned by Anastacia Montealegre. They hired the legal services of Atty. Pablo Esguerra and then filed a case against Javier. Complainants claimed that, during their several discussions with their counsel, the latter suggested that special court sessions could be arranged so that the case would move quickly but some encouragement/incentive is required. Since no incentive was available, the case was delayed for months for various reasons. Complainants aver that respondent Prosecutor Alfredo Juarez, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of the Regional Trial Court of Siniloan, Laguna, and Atty. Esguerra were usually absent whenever a court session is cancelled.
Moreover, they asserted that they would be summoned to attend court hearings only to find out that the sessions would be cancelled for unacceptable reasons, i.e., respondent has to attend a birthday party or their town fiesta. When they obtained copies of the minutes of the hearings on the dates respondent was absent, they found that they reflected that respondent attended the said hearings. To support their claim, they attached said copies of the minutes to their complaint.
When they asked their lawyer as to the cause of the delay, the lawyer in turn asked them whether they have a budget because he had spoken with the judge and the latter said that he wanted a total of P25,000.00 in order to prepare the final decision. Complainants declined and later they claimed that their lawyer shouted at them saying, "you don't want to upset Judge Fadul, do you? You either pay me or you get nothing and the case will go on."
They narrated that their lawyer continued to threaten them. They had no choice so they gave him the first half of the P25,000.00 in February 2006, the other half in March 2006. They pointed out that they gave payments directly to their lawyer and he said that he would get the Decision.
The complainants recalled that during their first meeting with their lawyer, the latter bragged about how he gave the respondent and Alfredo Juarez automobiles as gifts. He added that he also gave them cash and various gifts from time to time. Complainants further recalled that their lawyer told them that the respondent's salary is not enough and he needs to supplement his income by making court rulings in his house. The complainants maintained that the respondent and their lawyer are experts in absenteeism in court and they use delaying tactics to make people angry and force them to give in to their demands.
On June 13, 2007, the complainants recalled that they went to court to hear the disposition of their Motion to Dismiss. When the cases were called, the respondent judge shouted "you cannot have this ... denied." Respondent also said, "Go and get a lawyer." Complainant O'Donnell stood up and asked whether he could have a written document regarding the legal requirement for getting a lawyer and the resolution of their motion. The respondent shouted that it was not allowed and told him to get out. Complainant O'Donnell was escorted by a police officer.
The complainants asserted that the respondent was always absent in court and when he shows up, he was usually late. In court, he appears to be not interested and was often in a hurry to finish his work. Furthermore, he is arrogant, rude and hostile. He is bad-tempered and shouts at people on the witness stand.
In his Comment dated October 4, 2007, respondent vehemently denied the charges against him. He asserted that the complaint against him has no factual basis-as there was no evidence presented to support their claims.
In the Resolution dated January 30, 2008, the Court referred the case of Atty. Pablo Esguerra to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, or decision within thirty (30) days from notice.
The Court further resolved to treat the complaint against Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Municipal Trial Court, Mabitac, Laguna, as a separate administrative matter and referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from notice.
In its Memorandum dated June 12, 2008, the OCA informed the Court that prior to the referral of the said case to the OCA, said office received a complaint against respondent Judge referred by the Office of the Ombudsman; and that a thorough review of the records of these cases reveals that the complaints are similar. Upon the recommendation of the OCA, the Court, in its Resolution, ordered the incorporation of the records of OCA IPI No. 08-1977-MTJ in the records of OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ.
In its Report and Recommendation dated February 21, 2008, the OCA recommended that the administrative case filed against respondent Judge Nicolas Tadul, Jr. be DISMISSED for lack of merit because the complainants failed to substantiate their charges against respondent.
Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. The complainant must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to- support a conclusion.[1] Complainants failed to discharge that burden.
In its Resolution dated July 9, 2008, the Court resolved to adopt and approve the findings of fact and recommendation of the OCA, and dismissed the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit.
Considering that we have already disposed of the matters subject of the Letter of Thomas J. O'Donnell dated November 26, 2008, the same is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ (Thomas J. O'Donell, et al. v. Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr. [Acting] Municipal Trial Court, Mabitac, Laguna); and A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-1977-MTJ [Formerly A.C. No. 7613] (Thomas O'Donell, et al. v. Hon. Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr.) - This refers to the letter dated 26 November 2008 filed by complainant Thomas O'Donell, requesting that the Court review in detail all the seven complaints, against Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr. in 2007 and 2008 asking the Court to be specific in its decisions.
Based on various verified sworn complaints dated May 2, 2007, July 17, 2007 and December 18, 2007, complainants charged respondent with Neglect of Duty, Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act,Gross Ignorance of the Law and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service in relation to Civil Case No. 342 entitled "Anastacia Montealegre . Spouses Manuel Montealegre and Aurelia Montealegre" for Unlawful Detainer.
Complainants narrated that, in 2004, Tirso Javier made a false claim to the land owned by Anastacia Montealegre. They hired the legal services of Atty. Pablo Esguerra and then filed a case against Javier. Complainants claimed that, during their several discussions with their counsel, the latter suggested that special court sessions could be arranged so that the case would move quickly but some encouragement/incentive is required. Since no incentive was available, the case was delayed for months for various reasons. Complainants aver that respondent Prosecutor Alfredo Juarez, the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor of the Regional Trial Court of Siniloan, Laguna, and Atty. Esguerra were usually absent whenever a court session is cancelled.
Moreover, they asserted that they would be summoned to attend court hearings only to find out that the sessions would be cancelled for unacceptable reasons, i.e., respondent has to attend a birthday party or their town fiesta. When they obtained copies of the minutes of the hearings on the dates respondent was absent, they found that they reflected that respondent attended the said hearings. To support their claim, they attached said copies of the minutes to their complaint.
When they asked their lawyer as to the cause of the delay, the lawyer in turn asked them whether they have a budget because he had spoken with the judge and the latter said that he wanted a total of P25,000.00 in order to prepare the final decision. Complainants declined and later they claimed that their lawyer shouted at them saying, "you don't want to upset Judge Fadul, do you? You either pay me or you get nothing and the case will go on."
They narrated that their lawyer continued to threaten them. They had no choice so they gave him the first half of the P25,000.00 in February 2006, the other half in March 2006. They pointed out that they gave payments directly to their lawyer and he said that he would get the Decision.
The complainants recalled that during their first meeting with their lawyer, the latter bragged about how he gave the respondent and Alfredo Juarez automobiles as gifts. He added that he also gave them cash and various gifts from time to time. Complainants further recalled that their lawyer told them that the respondent's salary is not enough and he needs to supplement his income by making court rulings in his house. The complainants maintained that the respondent and their lawyer are experts in absenteeism in court and they use delaying tactics to make people angry and force them to give in to their demands.
On June 13, 2007, the complainants recalled that they went to court to hear the disposition of their Motion to Dismiss. When the cases were called, the respondent judge shouted "you cannot have this ... denied." Respondent also said, "Go and get a lawyer." Complainant O'Donnell stood up and asked whether he could have a written document regarding the legal requirement for getting a lawyer and the resolution of their motion. The respondent shouted that it was not allowed and told him to get out. Complainant O'Donnell was escorted by a police officer.
The complainants asserted that the respondent was always absent in court and when he shows up, he was usually late. In court, he appears to be not interested and was often in a hurry to finish his work. Furthermore, he is arrogant, rude and hostile. He is bad-tempered and shouts at people on the witness stand.
In his Comment dated October 4, 2007, respondent vehemently denied the charges against him. He asserted that the complaint against him has no factual basis-as there was no evidence presented to support their claims.
In the Resolution dated January 30, 2008, the Court referred the case of Atty. Pablo Esguerra to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation, or decision within thirty (30) days from notice.
The Court further resolved to treat the complaint against Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Municipal Trial Court, Mabitac, Laguna, as a separate administrative matter and referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from notice.
In its Memorandum dated June 12, 2008, the OCA informed the Court that prior to the referral of the said case to the OCA, said office received a complaint against respondent Judge referred by the Office of the Ombudsman; and that a thorough review of the records of these cases reveals that the complaints are similar. Upon the recommendation of the OCA, the Court, in its Resolution, ordered the incorporation of the records of OCA IPI No. 08-1977-MTJ in the records of OCA IPI No. 07-1934-MTJ.
In its Report and Recommendation dated February 21, 2008, the OCA recommended that the administrative case filed against respondent Judge Nicolas Tadul, Jr. be DISMISSED for lack of merit because the complainants failed to substantiate their charges against respondent.
Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that the respondent committed the act complained of rests on the complainant. The complainant must be able to show this by substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to- support a conclusion.[1] Complainants failed to discharge that burden.
In Sarmiento v. Salamat,[2] we said:
Let it be known that this Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act or omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary. However, when an administrative charge against a court personnel holds no basis whatsoever in fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court employee against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial processes.
As a final note, this Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice.
In its Resolution dated July 9, 2008, the Court resolved to adopt and approve the findings of fact and recommendation of the OCA, and dismissed the instant administrative complaint for lack of merit.
Considering that we have already disposed of the matters subject of the Letter of Thomas J. O'Donnell dated November 26, 2008, the same is NOTED WITHOUT ACTION.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court,
Endnotes:
[1] Dela Pena v. Huelma, AM. No. P-06-2218, August 15, 2006, 498 SCRA 593, 602.
[2] 416 Phil. 684,694-695 (2001).
